@maebee wrote:Trying not to be too hopeful here but I AM liking the phraseology of the headline in the Express. "Yard to call in Tapas 7" has a certain connotation to it. This is a bit of a bolt out of of the blue, which I would have expected to read as "SY to speak to the friends of the McCanns". This month is looking very interesting indeed.

Well I'm as cynical as they come but even my hopes are raised. I feel a change and yes the wording of the headline struck me as a bit 'harsh'. Sensational to say the least.

I wonder if this might be a distraction ploy by CM to create a buzz about something other than Pat Brown?

I doubit it - Desmond will toe CM's line over his dead body. Of all people, Desmond will be the last to do team mccann's bidding. IN fact, if anything, I believe he's waiting for pay back time.

I am sure Desmond source for that info must be reliable else he wont risk printing it especially in the wake of hack inquiry. It would be better if Express held back on that info, until the Tapas 7 are actually hauled in. Surprise element is also better. AS it is the Tapas 7 are now pre-warned.

It is good news indeed. I wonder which of the T7 is going to crack.

As an aside, just an idea - someone who uses twitter should tweet Pat Brown asking her to invite Desmond's titles to cover her Portugal trip. Perhaps Desmond will be more than happy to cover any story to do with the mccanns case.

1. What timing! Less than 48 hours after the news goes out that I have issued a cease-and-desist letter to Gerry and Kate and 24 hours before I leave for Portugal, suddenly big news! I know many think that since the news orgs haven't exactly rushed to print a story about what alI am doing, there is no need for diversion. This may be true, but the timing is so coincidental, I think CM may be attempting to make sure the story doesn't gain any momentum, to quickly turn heads away and say, see, something is happening over at SY; they are really making progress.

2. Of course, let's say that isn't true. That CM doesn't really want anyone even pointing at the Tapas 7 because, after all, what do they even know what would be helpful if the McCanns are innocent? If SY wants to interview them, hmm, that can't be good for the McCanns, can it?

3. So okay, this has zip to do with me and SY is planning to interview the Tapas 7. So they warn them? What? They want to give them time to get their stories down pat and perfect? What police department warns co-conspirators (if they are) that they are gearing up to interrogate them?

4. Why aren't the McCanns being interviewed?

5. Why would you spend millions of pounds and nine months going over the minutia of every tip before doing a crime scene analysis and reconstruction and bringing in the main players for interviews? Why wouldn't you require the McCanns and the Tapas 7 to do be interviewed, polygraphed, and to participate in a reconstruction if they want the review?

6. Which brings me to this: Either this is all smoke-and-mirrors and a distraction or Scotland took nine months and a shitload of taxpayer money to grow a brain and conduct a homicide investigation as even the smallest police department would; in a proper investigative manner starting at Square One.

Read it again, folks. Nothing in the article comes from Scotland yard except a statement from a spokesperson who says they are not ready to interview anyone yet. This report come from outside the police and says the Tapas 7 expect to be interviewed at some point, that is all. I would say it is ALL bogus spin and IS a diversion attempt.

Im with you on this pat,its one of these "look over here and not over there". The tapas 7 and the mccanns SHOULD have been interviewed at the start and been MADE to do the reconstruction, any how the tapas 7 couldnt be bothered to help Madeleine at the begining so i doubt they would help her now.

Sunday February 5,2012By James MurraySCOTLAND YARD detectives are poised to interview the so-called Tapas Seven as their inquiry into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann steps up a gear.The friends of Kate and Gerry McCann, who accompanied them on their holiday to Portugal almost five years ago, are expecting interview requests as soon as officers feel they could assist the investigation.So far, the Yard’s Maddie Squad has been concentrating on analysing every scrap of evidence in the case from files supplied by Leicestershire police, ­Portuguese detectives and Metodo 3, the Barcelona-based private investig­ators hired by the McCanns.Officers have flown to Portugal three times and visited Spain twice. With much of the analysis over, Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood wants to put his team of three detective chief inspectors, five detective sergeants and 19 detective constables to good use.They are being supported by six civilian staff and three officers from the specialist murder review group, bringing the total number on the team to 37.We are not at the stage of speaking to individuals yet. We are laying the groundworkA Yard spokesmanBy April the cost of the inquiry will be £1.9million but it is thought that figure could double with the “investigative review” going into next year.After nine months of information gathering, officers are checking statements from key witnesses. They include the Tapas Seven, so called because they were eating at a tapas bar with Kate and Gerry at the time Madeleine disappeared.In some cases the Yard officers have asked for documents to be retranslated from ­Portuguese to English so that they are absolutely sure of what was said and meant.One theory they are examining is that if someone abducted Madeleine they could have had a copy of the key for the holiday apartment at the Ocean Club in the Algarve resort of Praia da Luz.

SEARCH UK NEWS for:

The Sunday Express has learned that the Tapas Seven “fully expect” to be asked to go over the statements they made to Portuguese officers shortly after Madeleine vanished on May 3, 2007.They were also interviewed by Leicestershire detectives, with Portuguese officers in attendance, when they arrived home.The most significant witness is mother-of-two Jane Tanner, partner of doctor Russell O’Brien, who said she saw a man carrying a child resembling Madeleine some time after 9pm. Another key witness is Matthew Oldfield, who went to the apartment to check on Madeleine and twins Sean and Amelie, who celebrated their seventh birthdays last week.Mr Oldfield saw the twins in their cot but did not push the door open wide enough to see Madeleine, although he was happy all was well.All the Tapas Seven fully support the Yard’s review of the case and hope it will provide a breakthrough. Other members of the group include Mr Oldfield’s wife Rachael, David and Fiona Payne and her mother Dianne Webster.A Yard spokesman declined to say who would be interviewed and when. “We are not going into that level of details,” he said. “We are not at the stage of speaking to individuals yet. We are laying the groundwork.”The McCanns’ spokesman Clarence Mitchell said they and their friends would do everything to assist attempts to discover what happened to Madeleine.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------There has been a change of headline from "Yard to call in Tapas 7" to "Tapas 7 will help Madeleine Mccann Detectives". Either team mccanns had called in to demand a headline change, or the Editor of Express can't make up his mind. Anyway it's easy to change online version. Let's see what appears in the hard copy version.

The Yard has said all along they are hoping for a big break (from analysing the files) and hoping to use new approach to progress the matter. And, imo their big break won't come from outside factor since there is no outside factor involved at all (abduction wise) as there isn't a shred of evidence to support abduction nor official leads that resulted from the Police investigations (apart from bogus ones fabricated by we know who).Doubtless, the Yard are not going to be SO stupid as to follow the bogus leads supplied by mccanns' bogus detectives as that would be a bloody waste of time and money looking for a phantom needle in the ocean.

Since there is no abduction lead nor reliable independent witnesses for the Yard to follow up or interview, logically speaking the Yard big break must come from looking within. And the wise way to do it is step by step, starting with the Tapas 7 then working their way up to the mccanns eventually. The only way to break the mccanns story is via their holiday friends and enablers who helped them cover up.

I suspect the mccanns will be the last few, if not the last to be re-interviewed, because they wont crack ( not now anyway - too late for that as stake is very high) but one of their friends might.

Say even if every of their friend is tough and not afraid to risk consequences of perjury and no one cracks, there are always gems to be had from re-interview and catching them out at their lies. Detectives are adept at that - they must be - in their line of work, where criminals do not confess - police use trip up strategy. Anyway, the beauty about truth is : it is constant, while lie isn't, unless you've photographic memory.

What I find interesting is this bit "The McCanns’ spokesman Clarence Mitchell said they and their friends would do everything to assist attempts to discover what happened to Madeleine.". Well, this bit although not in quotation marks must come from the horse's mouth, else the Express is misrepresenting, which I'm sure team mccanns will be ever watchful to catch papers out.

Has anyone else noticed the implication of what CM said? He definitely sussed it that the Yard are onto them. Note how he changed tune - he did not say (as previously) that 'they would do everything to help find Madeleine'' rather he said '[u]they and friends would do everything to assist attempts to discover what happened to Madeleine[/u]. In other words, he concedes the Yard are attempting to discover what happened to Madeleine as opposed to the Yard are attempting "to find Madeleine".

If the Express is not making that up, then it really must come from the horse's (CM's) mouth, then it is really hopeful that the Yard is progressing in the right direction.

Now, what I didn't like is, like I mentioned before, the Express jumping the gun a bit. I wish they'd waited a little until it is all happening then cover it. Pre-warning is always bad, but having said that, the Tapas 7 are given plenty ropes and if they decide to hang themselves from getting twisted, so be it. Don't tell me they dare to collude openly again, a la style Rothley Hotel rendezvous, to come up with more fabricated tale for the eventuality of the interview?

The mccanns got their coveted review...let's see whether they are going to continue to be pleased or pissed.

@Pat Brown wrote:Read it again, folks. Nothing in the article comes from Scotland yard except a statement from a spokesperson who says they are not ready to interview anyone yet. This report come from outside the police and says the Tapas 7 expect to be interviewed at some point, that is all. I would say it is ALL bogus spin and IS a diversion attempt.

Pat, this is exactly what I thought after reading the article a couple of times. Far more newsworthy is your trip to Portugal and this front page proves that the McCann's PR people are sufficiently worried that they have to try a trick like this to stop news of your plans gaining momentum. What better place to plant this story than the newspaper which is seen as having the most McCann sceptic credentials? You can call it spin or call it reverse psychology, I call it manipulation.

I have worked enough cases to know you don't waste your time reading thousands of pages of leads if the answer could be at the crime scene and with the people involved. You study the crime scene photos, the early police reports, the forensic reports and the Tapas 9 interviews. IF at that point, you determine that everyone is tellih ng the truth, you the then start checking through all the leads.

@Pat Brown wrote:Read it again, folks. Nothing in the article comes from Scotland yard except a statement from a spokesperson who says they are not ready to interview anyone yet. This report come from outside the police and says the Tapas 7 expect to be interviewed at some point, that is all. I would say it is ALL bogus spin and IS a diversion attempt.

I hear what you are saying Pat, but since none of the UK title report on your "cease and desist" notice, or your imminent trip to Portugal, there is no need for team mccanns spin or diversionary tactics against that.

If this is diversionary tactic to take focus away from their upcoming case against TB (which incidentally was given coverage by few titles), then it is a lousy strategy on team mccanns part as the Express headline is not in their favour, but to the contrary.

I am positive and ever hopeful that the Yard will take this forward by starting with the TAPAS 7, then work backwards. Just by scrutinising their so claimed search - why their set up bogus private detectives headquarters, and examining those fishy and dodgy characters they hired as PIs with their bogus sightings and leads claim, then work backward is a good way to establish the veracity of mccanns' private search hence the abduction veracity. Once that is eliminated, there can be only one possibility and the way forward is to focus on the main players.

Hey, if this is true, I am all for it. I just find it odd that the McCanns would want them to do this and I find it odd to spend quite so much money doing it that way. But, if it works out in the end, that would be great. I am just a bit skeptical.

@Pat Brown wrote:Read it again, folks. Nothing in the article comes from Scotland yard except a statement from a spokesperson who says they are not ready to interview anyone yet. This report come from outside the police and says the Tapas 7 expect to be interviewed at some point, that is all. I would say it is ALL bogus spin and IS a diversion attempt.

I hear what you are saying Pat, but since none of the UK title report on your "cease and desist" notice, there is no need for team mccanns spin or diversionary tactics against that.

I think this is a pre-emptive strike on the part of the McCann's PR people. An attempt to stop the story 'growing legs' as they say. The spin masters learned their trade working for political parties and they apply the same techniques in manipulating opinion to the McCann case!

Personally, if anyone were to ask my view, I don't think this 'REVIEW' was taken at mccanns' behest. The mccanns might want people to think that, but I doubt the truth is anything but that.

If there has been a conspiracy and cover up by the Government, why waste good money rehasing a home and dry case, only to muddy what they'd whitewashed( if there has been a whitewash earlier). And if they want to whitewash it, there wont be a need to deploy 30 murder squad detectives and UK top cold case superintendents to man something they want to block out. All they had to do is pretend to go through the motion then come up with the same verdict as their counterparts in Portugal.

Then where would that leave the mccanns - back to square one, neither eliminated nor exonerated, and most important of all, NO Madeleine. Then What? Are the mccanns going to shut up for good as they can't possibility accuse the Yard as being as incompetent as the sardine munchers?Are the government spending this colossal amount of money only for them to look good ie so that they can say they'd done everything they can and still haven't a clue what happened to Madeleine, and render themselves national joke?Or are they going to waste taxpayers only to say they cant prove one way or another whether there was an abduction?

Personally I think someone in the government is sick to the back teeth of mccanns' relentless spin and decided a review is the only way to stop their spin, and determine whether their fund is fraudulently set up, and if so, put a stop to it once and for all.

Be it whether they (the Government and the Yard) can bring this case to a fruition or a conviction or not, the mccanns can no longer say no police is looking fore Madeleine,or that the UK government is doing nought to help them either. After this review, be it whatever the conclusion, the mccanns will have to stfu - there will no longer be any reason for them to moan and groan about anything.

If this is about whitewash (say because there is a conspiracy) wouldn't be it a lot easier, quicker and cost free, for the government to invite the mccanns to No. 10, have a word with him behind closed door or give them a written undertaking, or what not that is required to assure them of protection at all cost and make them go away in silence. In other words, tell him politely to stop their spin and let the story fade away. Why stir up the hornet with this expensive review?

@Pat Brown wrote:Read it again, folks. Nothing in the article comes from Scotland yard except a statement from a spokesperson who says they are not ready to interview anyone yet. This report come from outside the police and says the Tapas 7 expect to be interviewed at some point, that is all. I would say it is ALL bogus spin and IS a diversion attempt.

I hear what you are saying Pat, but since none of the UK title report on your "cease and desist" notice, there is no need for team mccanns spin or diversionary tactics against that.

I think this is a pre-emptive strike on the part of the McCann's PR people. An attempt to stop the story 'growing legs' as they say. The spin masters learned their trade working for political parties and they apply the same techniques in manipulating opinion to the McCann case!

But how can any story grow legs or grow anything if it isn't cover by the mainstream? If the master of spin wants to manipulate opinion in mccanns' favour, isnt it their own goal to tell a newspapers to print "Yard to call in Tapas 7"? No matter how you look at this, it isn't exactly smart move, if it is a spin.

Also, of all papers, can you imagine Desmond kowtowing to CM by doing his bidding and printing as told by pinky? If the Sun or another title reported it, maybe I will buy it as spin. Coming from the Express? Err..? NOt so sure.

At most I would think that maybe the heading is unfortunate, in that the Express gave it a twist it to sell papers. They are deducing it from info that the detectives are laying groundworks that may or will involve the re interviewing of witnesses and no one is ruled out of the inclusion. Having said that, if there's no truth in that "heading", surely mr pinky is going to deny it or rebut it?

No matter who be Express' source for the story, imo it can't be from pinky. Not when Express is involved and not when the story does not look good for the mccanns. jmho of course.

I agree Aiyoyo. There are much cheaper and quieter ways to carry out a whitewash, if that was what it is to be. I think Clarrie has been working hard to present the investigation as the much longed for review the McCanns have asked for, although as Scotland Yard dig further it will become apparent that there was only ever disinformation and lack of cooperation from TM.

Whatever the reason for the story, the Tapas 7 must be expecting to be reinterviewed anyway. SY will be looking for some kind of sensible statement from each person, without the ums, ers etc! I don't think the Express is giving anything away by telling us this. What is interesting is the change of headline overnight, which tells us that Clarrie has been trying to minimise the negative impact. After all, the first version was not at all complimentary! The fact they of all people are even writing this gives me some small hope that something is finally going to happen to get to the bottom of Madeleine's disappearance.

How can we be sure that Scotland Yard are doing anything at all? This could be nothing more than a PR exercise.

This review is costing the tax payers millions. As a taxpayer, I would like to have some say in this and I would strongly recommend that before they go any further Scotland Yard interview Goncalo Amaral and his colleagues, with an independent translator present.

Pat's opened my eyes here, looking at this report in the cold light of day I can see that it probably is a smoke screen. Maybe to counteract the copy & paste increased costs reports during the week and this is to somehow justify it by saying 'hey we are making progress and bringing in people for questioning' kind of thing

Also, all the police info in this report are 'sources' no names nothing official, nothing committing themselves to what they actually are going to be doing...yet on the mccanns side clarence mitchell is named and has a quote. How did he know about what the police were planning & before the report was published? and if he knew, then the report can name who the police sources were too. And surely the head of review police should making the quotes

And why not the mccanns might be re interviewed? They are the main obstacle in stopping the truth here after all

The key might be a cryptic 5-2-3-1!!!

Yes I see what this is about now

____________________Who pulled the strings?...THE SYMINGTONS..And the Scottish connections...Look no further if you dare

Might it not be that someone from the press asked SY if they were going to interview the T7. Could even be some time ago. Now - aided by the pink one - we have that headline which I feel is rather good. Almost as if the paper is publishing this against their will and getting their own back.Not: T7 are helping SY!!, or T7 will help find Madeleine!!! - both of which would have been more likely a few years ago. No, it's SY commanding the T7 to cooperate. Much better.

@Tony Bennett wrote:I was wondering if we could assist the Scotland Yard Review Team by suggesting a few questions that maybe their inept colleagues at Leicestershire Police neglected to ask them last time round in the 2008 rogatories.

Here's one or two for starters:

++++++++++++++++=

1. Ms Tanner, I'd like to go over what you saw from the police van with the two-way windows on Sunday 13 May. You originally said that on 3 may at around 9.15pm you saw a bloke in a dark jacket and mustard chinos, dark hair and not wearing glasses, about 5' 9", walking purposefully. But when you saw Murat walk past the police van, you were adamant that that was who you had seen 10 days earlier. Murat was not at all like the description you gave police originally, was he? So why did you pick him out?

I am sure other folk can think of a few more.

In relation to this question, I think it needs to be established that she definitely picked him out. The rogatroy interviews for some reason skirt around it.

So Ii'd add this:

In your rogatory interview in relation to the surveillance operation you stated:

Reply “You know, or said yeah, had said that he wasn’t there on the night, so you know was immediately, I think :it was immediately, I’m not trying to push anything onto Robert MURAT’s door, cos as I say I don’t think it was him that I saw”.4078: “No”.Reply: “But I just thought it was”.

Given your comment "But I just thought it was", please can you confirm that you provided a positive identification of Mr Murat to the officers as the man you saw allegedly carrying a child whilst in the van that night.

Once this simple fact has been established, we have the credibility of the only witness to an abduction in tatters.

When this is established, how can the Team then contiune to profess abducton without serious question from the mainstream media?

____________________What is certain is that since the start of the investigation there were incongruent and even contradictory situations concerning the witness statements; the telephone records of calls that were made and received on mobile phones that belonged to the couple and to the group of friends that were on holidays with them; the movements of people right after the disappearance of the little girl was noticed, concerning the state in which the bedroom from where the child disappeared from was found (closed window? open window? partially open window?) etc., and the mystery would only become even thicker due to the clues that were left by the already mentioned sniffer dogs. - The Words of a JUDGE in relation to the McCanns

@PeterMac wrote:As someone once said, probably- "A Whitewash must not just be done, it must never be seen to be done"

I'm not sure things are that simple Peter. There is more than one audience being addressed and sometimes blatancy is the message for one of those audiences. Think of the discrepancy between the evidence submitted to the Hutton Inquiry and the Hutton Report where the later just ignored the former and produced a Ministry of Propaganda press release.

No analogy is perfect, but it seems to me that a good way to get a handle on the reality of the state is to think of the way the Mafia operates (or at least how we all think the Mafia operates through our Hollywood programming). If someone needs to be dispensed with they will either just disappear and 'sleep with the fishes', or they will be left in a public place with a rat stuffed in their mouth. The point being to send a message. There are plenty of messages being sent in this case I reckon, just like there was with the Hutton farrago.

@Tony Bennett wrote:I was wondering if we could assist the Scotland Yard Review Team by suggesting a few questions that maybe their inept colleagues at Leicestershire Police neglected to ask them last time round in the 2008 rogatories.

Here's one or two for starters:

++++++++++++++++

1. Ms Tanner, I'd like to go over what you saw from the police van with the two-way windows on Sunday 13 May. You originally said that on 3 may at around 9.15pm you saw a bloke in a dark jacket and mustard chinos, dark hair and not wearing glasses, about 5' 9", walking purposefully. But when you saw Murat walk past the police van, you were adamant that that was who you had seen 10 days earlier. Murat was not at all like the description you gave police originally, was he? So why did you pick him out?

I am sure other folk can think of a few more.

In relation to this question, I think it needs to be established that she definitely picked him out. The rogatory interviews for some reason skirt around it.

So Ii'd add this:

In your rogatory interview in relation to the surveillance operation you stated:

Reply “You know, or said yeah, had said that he wasn’t there on the night, so you know was immediately, I think :it was immediately, I’m not trying to push anything onto Robert MURAT’s door, cos as I say I don’t think it was him that I saw”.4078: “No”.Reply: “But I just thought it was”.

Given your comment "But I just thought it was", please can you confirm that you provided a positive identification of Mr Murat to the officers as the man you saw allegedly carrying a child whilst in the van that night.

Once this simple fact has been established, we have the credibility of the only witness to an abduction in tatters.

When this is established, how can the Team then contiune to profess abducton without serious question from the mainstream media?

Me, good afternoon.

If I may say so, that is an excellent point, and thanks for highlighting that particular part of Jane Tanner's interview.

How absolutely right you are to state: "The rogatory interviews for some reason skirt around [Tanner's identification of Murat as the abductor she claimed to have seen on 3 May]".

I wish that more people could see the fundamental significance of Tanner identifying Robert Murat as the person she claimed to have seen at 9.15pm on Thursday 3 may 2007.

In 'The Truth About A Lie', Dr Goncalo Amaral gives a calm account of how Jane Tanner said she was 'adamant' that, as Robert Murat strolled by the police van, on Sunday 13 May 2007, that was the person she'd seen carrying a child near the McCanns' apartment 10 days before.

If you read Dr Amaral's account, contrast his insistence that Jane Tanner was 'adamant' about identifying Murat with Jane Tanner (above) saying, limply, 'I just thought it was [Robert Murat]'.

What I want to suggest, choosing my words carefully ahead of Wednesday, is that the identification of Robert Murat as the chief suspect was fundamental to the agenda of certain people. I would like to appeal to all reading my post to revisit, in your minds, why Jane Tanner was 'adamant' that it was Robert Murat that she had seen. I would then also like you to pause and reflect on why, no sooner had Murat been pulled in for questioning, than three of the 'Tapas 7' hurried to give statements to the Portuguese Police all claiming that they had 'definitely' seen Murat 'hanging around outside the Ocean Club' on the evening of 3 May. These three were IIRC Rachel Oldfield, Fiona Payne, and Russell O'Brien. These three then maintained their stories about seeing Murat at an eyeball-to-eyeball, kneecap-to-kneecap confrontation with Robert Murat at Portimao Police Station on 11 July 2007.

Then we need to consider how, after Robert Murat met at his aunt and uncle's house on 13 November 2007 together with his lawyer, Brian Kennedy and Edward Smethurst, the story gradually changed through November to February 2008. Suddenly, the 'Tapas 3' were no longer so sure they'd seen Murat outside the Ocean Club on the evening of 3 May. Maybe, it was cunningly suggested, they'd confused him with Andrew Symington, who was said to 'look similar'. The McCanns began to go 'soft' on Murat. They were no longer sure he was a prime suspect: "Maybe he was connected to those who'd abducted Madeleine..maybe he wasn't...it's important that he too is regarded as innocent until proven guilty..." etc. etc. Then Jane Tanner even attempted to deny that she'd ever identified Murat in the first place.

All of this was set out in detail in one of our articles (the long one on Roberr Murat) but I'm not sure if it's still there now as I think it was one of the ones we agreed under pressure from Carter-Ruck to take down in August last year.

Two things are very very clear about the pivotal issue of what Jane Tanner said to police inside that police van.

ONE - Dr Amaral states as a fact that Jane Tanner 'adamantly' identified Robert Murat as the probable abductor from a police van on 13 May, an event which triggered Murat being questioned - along with work done by Control Risks Group and MI5 and others in apparently profiling Murat as a likley suspect

TWO - The McCann-believers repeatedly and loudly claim that Amaral is lying about the whole incident.

ETA:

How Tanner adamantly 'recognised' Robert Murat, and how the 'Tapas 3' miraculously recovered their memories - BY GONCALO AMARAL

from a translation of A Verdada da Mentira

JANE TANNER FORMALLY RECOGNISES ROBERT MURAT

Before the search [of Murat's house], we want to assure ourselves that Jane Tanner recognises [Murat] as the individual she saw on the night of the disappearance. She is sitting inside an unmarked car, whose tinted windows allow her to see out without being spotted. The vehicle is parked at the exact spot where she was on the night of May 3rd. Robert Murat, anonymous amongst plain clothes police officers, goes up the road in the same way as the alleged abductor. Jane Tanner is adamant: it certainly is Robert Murat that she saw that night. She definitely recognises his way of walking. But does he resemble the description she painted previously?

The investigator, with whom Murat is on friendly terms, is with him in a bar until 2 o'clock in the morning. We are not about to relax surveillance. As soon as he gets home, police officers are stationed around his house in order to monitor all entrances. The crisis unit is buzzing; the teams are preparing for the search. It will be carried out at 7am - the legally designated time -, when the journalists are not yet on the streets. The operation is kept secret. We request reinforcements from the GNR. For the moment, we have no evidence against Murat, only suspicions. If we had been certain that Madeleine was in the house, we wouldn't have had to wait for daylight to intervene. Scenes of crime specialists accompany us in the search for evidence. Outside, two rainwater recovery tanks are explored with the help of divers. We pack up a few items of clothing to send to a laboratory that will carry out the search for fibres, hair, traces of blood that possibly came from Maddie. The cars are also gone over with a fine tooth comb. Laptops are seized and their contents examined by specialists. We find a cutting from a British newspaper, dated 23rd September 2006, that refers to a case of paedophilia.

THE FIRST SUSPECT

Robert Murat is placed under investigation and interviewed at the offices of the police in Portimão from 10am. He does not wish for the presence of a lawyer. He is the first suspect who will be declared arguido. As such, he benefits from certain rights, one of them being to remain silent. But he does not assert that right and responds to all questions put to him. Despite obvious nervousness, his statements are clear and precise.

We ask about the reasons for his arrival in Vila da Luz on May 1st, four days after the McCanns' - the hypothesis of planned abduction is considered. Murat could have entrusted the observation to an accomplice, who would have chosen Madeleine and observed the parents' habits as well as their pattern of monitoring the children.

We want to know more about his circle of friends and the places they frequent. During the evening of the disappearance, he remembers having heard a siren shortly after 10.30pm. He was then in the kitchen with his mother. The next morning at around 9 o'clock, he asked a passer-by what had happened, and that was how he learned about Madeleine's disappearance. He then decided to go and offer his help.

All Murat's statements are immediately checked. We check the places he says he went to with Michaela, looking for CCTV cameras or witnesses able to describe the clothes he was wearing that day. We would like to compare them with the description provided by Jane Tanner.

We ask him about a telephone call intercepted after the announcement of the disappearance. His response is very vague. We know that towards 11.30pm, Michaela phoned Murat. Then, he called a certain Sergey Malinka, and straight afterwards, Michaela. We will never know the content of these conversations; no one will give us plausible explanations. The answers are evasive: "I no longer remember," or "that was about the web site for the estate agency." Sergey Malinka is Russian, aged 23. He works in computers and lives with his parents in Vila da Luz, 300 metres from the Ocean Club. His mother, a housewife, is employed by a cleaning company that does certain apartments for the club. He is seeing a young Portuguese woman, aged 33, mother of a teenager. The wife of one of his associates, of British origin, states that in 2006, he boasted about having had sexual relations with a minor, aged 14, and related how the father had surprised them; he allegedly stated that currently he maintains a relationship with an older woman and her daughter at the same time. Interviewed, he refuted these allegations: he claims that it's vengeance on the part of his associate, unhappy with the way their shared company worked out.

Murat and Michaela intend to open an estate agency together. They were looking for a computer engineer to build a web site and had thus met Sergey. It was to discuss this that they arranged a get-together near the Ocean Club on May 2nd. Luis Antonio was seen in the area. Was he watching his wife? That speculation is hardly credible since he seemed to accept his wife's relationship with Murat.

On May 14th, the home and vehicles belonging to Michaela and Luis Antonio are searched. The couple are interviewed in the afternoon. Michaela hints that she suspects her husband. Luis Antonio, as a person responsible for maintaining swimming pools, has access to a great number of hotel or private residences, spread throughout the Vila da Luz and Lagos area. Certain buildings are closed for a good part of the year, but in spring, the pools are prepared before the summer season. Searches are ordered of all the residences concerned, without success. No trace, anywhere, of Madeleine. We're back to square one.

The discovery of a key at Murat's house revives the hope of finally getting a lead. He tells us that it belongs to Michaela, and that it must have been dropped accidentally. Where was that key before it was found at his house? In Michaela's pocket? In her bag? We learn that it opens the door of a garage where Luis Antonio stores his maintenance products. A team is sent immediately to the part of Lagos where this garage is situated. The search proves as disappointing as the others. Nothing is found. Once again, no evidence of Madeleine's presence.

FOR THE PROFILERS, MURAT IS THE GUILTY PARTY

Since Murat's first interview, which they attended, the specialists have continued to refine the profile of the suspect. They have heard about the statement from one of his so-called childhood friends, put on file by the police department: according to him, Murat had an affirmed penchant for bestiality. He recounted his attempts at sexual relations with a cat and a dog, subsequently killed, he states, with cruelty. Moreover, he allegedly attempted to rape his 16 year-old cousin. This individual describes Murat as someone violent with behavioural problems, a sexual pervert, sadist, and misanthropist. We are somewhat sceptical. All the same, according to the English profilers, there is a 90% chance that he is the guilty party. That seems to us to be a bit too easy. We think that drawing conclusions based essentially on the statement of an ex-convict is rather dangerous.

As if the memory of the McCann family's friends suddenly came back to them, all - Rachael Mampilly, wife of Matthew Oldfield, Fiona Payne, wife of David Payne, and Russell O'Brien Jane Tanner's partner - recall having seen Murat on the night of May 3rd, shortly after the announcement of the disappearance, in the immediate vicinity apartment 5A. Meanwhile, of course, Murat's picture has been shown on television and in certain newspapers. They themselves were in direct contact with him during the previous days. However, it is only on May 16th that they deliver this information to us. As for the officers of the National Guard who were on the spot, they didn't see him that night, only the next morning, when he came to offer his services as interpreter.

On July 11th at 10am, a confrontation is organised between the witnesses - Rachael Mampilly, Fiona Payne and Russell O'Brien - and Robert Murat. Nothing new comes out of it. The former persist in stating that the suspect was definitely in the area on the night of the disappearance. Murat denies the whole thing and even accuses them of lying. Each side stands its ground. The only positive aspect of this meeting: the McCanns' friends undertake to return to Portugal for the purpose of the investigation. That will not happen.

Scotland Yard detectives investigating the disappearance of Madeleine McCann are set to interview the so-called Tapas Seven. The group are friends of Kate and Gerry McCann who dined with them at a tapas restaurant on the night of Madeleine's disappearance five years ago and are central witnesses in the case. The team of detectives has been analysing every scrap of evidence that was gathered when the little girl first went missing and interviewing key witnesses again.Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood has three detective chief inspectors, five detective sergeants and 19 detective constables who are being supported by six civilian staff and three officers from the specialist murder review group.By April they will have managed to rack up a bill of nearly £2m after Prime Minister David Cameron called in the force to review the case last May.So far they have made at least four trips to Portugal and Spain to gather evidence, including a file of leads from private investigators.

Met Police review of Madeleine McCann abduction will have cost taxpayer £2m in a yearNow, after nine months, they are set to check the statements of the McCann's friends, the Sunday Express said. A key witness is believed to be Jane Tanner, the partner of Russell O'Brien, who claims she saw a man carrying a child resembling Madeleine shortly after 9pm.

Another friend, Matthew Oldfield, will also be quizzed again. He went to the apartment to check on Madeleine and her siblings Sean and Amelie, now seven, but did not open the door far enough to see Madeleine.Other members of the group include Rachael, David and Fiona Payne and her mother Dianna Webster, the newspaper said. Scotland Yard said it was 'laying the groundwork' before speaking to individuals but would not say who exactly they were interviewing.Madeleine disappeared from her parents’ holiday apartment in Praia da Luz on the Algarve in Portugal on May 3 2007.She vanished days before her fourth birthday as her parents dined with friends in a tapas bar just a short distance away.Since then the case has become one of the most infamous crime mysteries in modern history with hundreds of ‘sightings’ of Madeleine worldwide.